Re: [pcp] I-D.ietf-pcp-base needs UNSAF Consideration, c.f. RFC 3424
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> Tue, 14 August 2012 20:21 UTC
Return-Path: <jhw@apple.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D6D21E8054 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CMZ6izbaa4Zd for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57E421E804C for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from relay11.apple.com ([17.128.113.48]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTPS id <0M8R0083NH8NK86B@mail-out.apple.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807130-b7fb86d000004da6-d4-502ab345ffe7
Received: from spicerack.apple.com (spicerack.apple.com [17.128.115.40]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 0D.1F.19878.543BA205; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kallisti.apple.com ([17.193.13.64]) by spicerack.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01 (7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <0M8R008OCHVND6A0@spicerack.apple.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <tsly5lhia5y.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:21:23 -0700
Message-id: <0EE48C8D-317F-4F73-8ED1-B764584267F4@apple.com>
References: <C6EC0D3D-B90F-42AF-B647-C161AA48A24B@apple.com> <tsly5lhia5y.fsf@mit.edu>
To: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FCsoeu6WSvA4P9iKYvJx36zOjB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY/bBy6wFS9gqFq7YwdTA+Ieli5GTQ0LARGLl1xPMELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hARmMEmcntECViQkMItJ4sQ7dhCbWUBLYv3O40wgNq+AHlDDO0YQW1jAV+L355Vg NpuAisS3y3fBajgF1CTW/28Dm8MioCox7/ZJqDnaEk/eXWCFmGMj8X/9F2aIXRESp2bfAasR EVCUOLDtBjvEcbIS3w+fZ5vAyD8LyRmzkJwxC8nYBYzMqxgFi1JzEisNDfUSCwpyUvWS83M3 MYJDrNBgB+Pan/yHGAU4GJV4eB3MNQOEWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifC+Xq0VIMSbklhZlVqUH19U mpNafIhRmoNFSZy3Z4dSgJBAemJJanZqakFqEUyWiYNTqoGxJUVaJSs66qQw09egZDvvLMMv KhaaC/Yv7PX562e8fO9aqXfa6tLKypc9XevF6uadPcxr+NhKtmrJxhU3TR/VyPjOfmgyZ5+g 5rtXLnOqdk63aVv074h6yK4mhsyp2k//fCuZ/4b/k+7XWY++vFiR+/HQOR2pw76F+55eat80 c/sSvu/liqdLlFiKMxINtZiLihMBfMkBTy0CAAA=
Subject: Re: [pcp] I-D.ietf-pcp-base needs UNSAF Consideration, c.f. RFC 3424
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:21:44 -0000
On Aug 14, 2012, at 11:46 , Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> wrote: > > I don't know how this came about. However as a matter a process, I don't think it appropriate to add this to the PCP base spec nor hold up the PCP base spec for this issue post iesg-review. Concur. I'm just interested in finding out how the UNSAF considerations section, which appeared in the predecessor specification, was omitted from the PCP base draft. Was there a discussion about it, or did it happen without discussion? Whatever the case, I'm thinking the story about how it happened should be brought to the attention of IAB with a request to consider moving RFC 3424 to Historic. -- james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> member of technical staff, core os networking
- [pcp] I-D.ietf-pcp-base needs UNSAF Consideration… james woodyatt
- Re: [pcp] I-D.ietf-pcp-base needs UNSAF Considera… Sam Hartman
- Re: [pcp] I-D.ietf-pcp-base needs UNSAF Considera… james woodyatt